Sino-American relations are, once again, in a downswing. Beijing objected to US President Barack Obama’s receiving the Dalai Lama in the White House, as well as to the administration’s arms sales to Taiwan. There was ample precedent for both US decisions, but some Chinese leaders expected Obama to be more sensitive to what China sees as its “core interests” in national unity.
Things were not supposed to turn out this way. A year ago, the Obama administration made major efforts to reach out to China. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to “being in the same boat,” and that China and the US would “rise and fall together.” US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he spent more time consulting his Chinese counterparts than those in any other country. Some observers even referred to a US-Chinese “G2” that would manage the world economy.
The G2 idea was always foolish. Europe has a larger economy than both the US and China, and Japan’s economy is currently about the same size as China’s. Their participation in the solution of global problems will be essential. Nonetheless, growing US-Chinese cooperation within the G20 last year was a positive sign of bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
Whatever the concerns regarding the recent events related to the Dalai Lama and Taiwan, it is important to note that the deterioration in US-Chinese relations began beforehand. Many US members of Congress, for example, complain that US jobs are being destroyed by China’s intervention in currency markets to maintain an artificially low value for the yuan.
A second issue was China’s decision not to cooperate at the UN conference on global climate change in Copenhagen in December. Not only did China resist measures that had been under negotiation for the preceding year, but Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s (溫家寶) decision to send a low-level official to meet with and point a finger at Obama was downright insulting.
China behaved similarly when the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany) met to discuss sanctions against Iran for violations of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Again, China sent a low-ranking official.
What happened to those promising early signs of cooperation? Two reasons for the change in Chinese behavior — seemingly inconsistent at first glance, but in fact perhaps mutually reinforcing — seem possible.
First, a political transition is expected in 2012, and, in a period of rising nationalism, no Chinese leader wants to look softer than his rivals. This helps to explain the recent crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as the detention of human rights lawyers.
In addition, China may be approaching an economic transition. Some Chinese argue that anything less than 8 percent growth would be inadequate to ensure sufficient job creation and fend off social instability. But, as the US’ savings rate begins to rise, China’s export-led growth model, which has promoted employment in China at the cost of global trade imbalances, may no longer be possible. If China responds to entreaties to revalue the yuan, it may need to look tough on other issues to appease nationalist sentiment.
The second cause of China’s recent behavior could be hubris and overconfidence. China is justly proud of its success in emerging from the world recession with a high rate of economic growth. It blames the US for producing the recession, and now holds some US$2 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves.
Many Chinese believe that this represents a shift in the global balance of power, and that China should be less deferential to other countries, including the US. Certain Chinese academics are now writing about the decline of the US, with one identifying the year 2000 as the peak of US power.
This overconfidence in foreign policy, combined with insecurity in domestic affairs, may combine to explain the change in Chinese behavior in the latter part of last year. If so, China is making a serious miscalculation.
First, the US is not in decline. Americans and others have been predicting decline regularly over the years: after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957; again when former US president Richard Nixon closed the gold window in 1971; and when the US rust-belt economy seemed to be overtaken by Japanese manufacturers in the 1980s. But when one looks at the underlying strength of the US economy, it is not surprising that the World Economic Forum ranks the US second (just behind Switzerland) among the most competitive, while China ranks some 30 places below.
Second, that China holds so many US dollars is not a true source of power, because the interdependence in the economic relationship is symmetrical. True, if China dumped its dollars on world markets, it could bring the US economy to its knees, but in doing so, it would bring itself to its ankles.
China would not only lose the value of its dollar reserves, but would suffer major unemployment. When interdependence is balanced, it does not constitute a source of power.
Third, despite Chinese complaints, the dollar is likely to remain the major global reserve currency, owing to the depth and breadth of the US’ capital markets, which China cannot match without making the yuan fully convertible and reforming its banking system.
Finally, China has miscalculated by violating the wisdom of Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), who advised that China should proceed cautiously and “keep its light under a basket.”
As a senior Asian statesman told me recently, Deng would never have made this mistake. If Deng were in charge today, he would lead China back to the cooperative relations with the US that prevailed early last year.
Joseph Nye, a former assistant US secretary of defense, is a professor at Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
RSS